Just before the Manokwari demonstrations, on September 29 and 30, five men were arrested and accused of
organizing the series of pro-independence demonstrations that had begun in July. A sixth, They Eluay, a respected
tribal leader (ondofolo), was arrested the next week, on October 6. All were charged under Article 110 of the criminal
code with conspiracy to commit crimes against national security. The arrests, and Eluay's in particular, became a
major test of how far the government was willing to go in allowing free discussion of independence.

The first five men to be arrested, Don Flassy, Rev. Agustinus Ansanai, Barnabas Yufuwai, Laurence
Mehuwe, and Sem Yaru, were all known in Jayapura as pro-independence advocates; indeed, led by Don Flassy,
secretary of the provincial government's Planning and Development Board, all were members of a group called
Committee for an Independent West Papua (Komite Independen Papua Barat). Sem Yaru was a more controversial
figure: a former OPM member who had been detained in the late 1980s, Yaru was a civilian employee of the regional
military command and, according to local sources, widely suspected in the activist community of having links to the
military that went beyond his job. When, at the end of September, he circulated flyers calling on people to take part
in a pro-independence demonstration in Jayapura on October 2, church leaders urged their followers not to take part,
fearing it was a provocation. The demonstration did not materialize. (Two students, arrested and briefly detained on
October 2 for taking part in a meeting three days before that police said was aimed at organizing a pro-independence
rally, wrote in testimonies made available to Human Rights Watch that in fact, they were meeting to tell students not
to take part in the October 2 demonstration planned by Yaru.)

It was the arrest of Theys Eluay, however, that sparked a major public reaction. Not only was he regarded
as one of Irian Jaya's elder statesmen, a man who had been among the few handpicked people to take part in the 1969
sham "vote" on integration with Indonesia but who had become an outspoken advocate of independence. At the time
of his arrest, he was also head of the Customary Council of Irian Jaya, a government creation, but one composed
nonetheless of influential people, and his words and actions carried great weight.

Eluay was arrested at his home in Sentani, outside Jayapura, early in the morning on October 6. When police
came to his home, he told them that the next day he had planned to be tied up by his own people as a symbolic gesture
and be carried to the police command where the other five were detained. He was then planning to offer to be locked
up in exchange for their release. The police rejected the plan and took him off to the police command, where he was
locked up with the others. He was formally charged with rebellion on October 7; in addition, police said he had
violated Criminal Code Article 169 about gathering people together with the intention of committing a crime and
Article 160, inciting people to violence against the authorities. "He himself admits that several times he called
meetings to discuss the independence of West Papua and how it should separate itself from Indonesia," the police
commander said.(16)

Eluay freely admitted meeting with Sem Yaru, whom he apparently did not regard with the same suspicion
that others did, and with Don Flassy. His lawyers told the press that during questioning, Eluay made no effort to hide
his belief that Irian Jaya should be a separate state or that he considered himself a leader of West Papua. He
explained that he had welcomed integration with Indonesia three decades ago but that Indonesian practices had
convinced him that independence was the best option for the Papuan people. "If anyone is ready to be detained for
his opinions, it's Theys Eluay," the lawyer said.(17) Eluay sent letters from his cell saying he would continue the
struggle for independence from behind bars; the governor of Irian Jaya responded by saying he was revoking the
decree making Eluay head of the tribal council.

Eluay's arrest and detention became inextricably tied to the debate over the idea of a national dialogue One
local newspaper said in mid-October that it had been flooded with calls, as people rang up to vent their anger at
Eluay's arrest, asking the editors if it was true that he was arrested as a way of silencing anyone who did not agree
with the government that a dialogue could only focus on greater autonomy for Irian Jaya, not independence. The
paper noted the statements of provincial security officials in response to widespread demands for Eluay's release:
that they would never tolerate any activities that smacked of rebellion or separatism. But, the editors asked, it was
a real question if detention of independence advocates was going to suppress the sentiment or resolve the problem.(18)

Whether or not Eluay and the others were arrested to suppress debate on independence, the public airing of
the belief that they were, together with the massive pressure mounted within Irian Jaya, led to all six men being
released on October 22. By that time, the debate over the dialogue was in full swing.

That debate bore striking parallels with the dynamics of tripartite talks among the United Nations, Portugal,
and Indonesia on autonomy for East Timor. As with East Timor, the Indonesian government indicated that autonomy
in Irian Jaya could not be seen as a transition step toward independence; not only was independence not an option,
but it was even banned from discussion. The government maintained that support for independence was restricted
to a small, if vocal, group of people, and that any dialogue had to take place on the basis of acceptance of a unitary
Indonesian state.

Freddy Numberi, the governor of Irian Jaya, said in October that the dialogue would focus on issues such
as injustice, human rights violations, land, economic autonomy, and retaining a greater share of earnings from natural
resources so that every child in Irian Jaya could have free schooling and health care. In an autonomous Irian Jaya,
he said, security, currency, and the court system would continue to be handled by Jakarta.(19)

Church leaders were among those who argued that for the dialogue to be an open and honest forum, there
should be no restrictions on content, nor should the precise contours of autonomy be set beforehand. Rev. Herman
Saut, head of Irian Jaya's largest Protestant congregation, said in an interview that if limits were going to be imposed
in advance, it would no longer be a genuine dialogue. Instead, it would be a repeat of 1969, when the interests of the
central government determined the outcome and local people had no real say in the matter. In response to suggestions
that the church was seen as backing some of the pro-independence activities, he said the church took no sides but
wanted to ensure that its followers understood the full implications of the three possibilities before them: autonomy,
federation, and independence. He said that independence had widespread support in the interior of Irian Jaya and
wondered aloud to the journalist whether autonomy would be enough for people who had suffered so much under
three decades of Indonesian rule.(20)

As the debate was growing more heated and the differences between the government position and influential
community leaders growing more pronounced, Theys Eluay used his recovered freedom to begin calling for a major
demonstration throughout the province on December 1 to commemorate the thirtieth anniversary of the date the Dutch
government promised independence to what was then known as the territory of West Irian and the date the West
Papuan flag was flown for the first time. Throughout November, as the anniversary approached, church leaders as
well as government officials were openly expressing concern that such a demonstration could only lead to violence
and/or widespread arrests. Eluay called off the demonstration at the last minute, but not before troop reinforcements
had been sent to all the towns where demonstrations had taken place before. In the end, December 1 passed peacefully
without either rallies or crackdowns, but the tension built up in the preceding weeks has not diminished. Eluay now
says he will not take part in a dialogue; others in the church, NGO, and university communities, including some who
proposed the notion in the first place and who initially greeted the government's offer with something approaching
exhilaration, are increasingly convinced that it will end up as a Jakarta-engineered initiative with a foreordained
outcome in which local aspirations are ignored. The fact that government officials were proposing in late November
that the dialogue be postponed until late 1999 only increased the feeling of disillusionment.